Bhakti and Jnana ...

December 14, 2005

OM TAT SAT

Namaskar, I did not read every email on this thread but looks like nobody

really talked about Ishwar in this email thread. Before I say anything, let me

clarify that I am not an Advaitin or Dvaitin or Vishistadvaitin. I am just a

believer in Ishwar. The question of Bhakti only comes if you believe in a

supreme Lord or Ishwar. According to my understanding of Advaita, it says that

even Ishwar has reality only in the relative plane of existence. Advaita says

that on realization or atmabodha, all things are in me or I am in all things.

In other words, there is no Ishwar as such because Brahman neither creates nor

destroys nor is he aware of any object. Even before you start praying, Advaita

creates a doubt in your mind - that the Lord you are praying to has only

relative reality. The supreme Brahman neither created anything nor is he aware

of anything for it is the universal subject. Whence then came Vedas ? Why

treat Shruti with reverence and respect ? Brahman is not aware of any Shruti,

is he ? This is a fundamental problem that Advaita presents to my dull

understanding. This paramarthik position of Advaita is also in conflict with

Brahmsutra which says that Brahman is the cause of creation, dissolution etc of

the universe. What creation and what object says Advaita ?

OM TAT SAT

December 14, 2005

Namste:

I cannot answer all the questions you have raised but littlebit I

know about the word "iishvara" is given below. I will let others

answer your question about brhmasuutra to the experts.

Here is what we understand about the word "iishvara" as it appears

in various places in out vedic literature and that may help our

overall understanding the significance as well.

The word iishavara itself does not appear the R^igveda samhitaa

itself, however, the root verb "iish" dhaatu seems to have been used

in many places. iish – conveys the meaning of svaamitva, to

regulate (niyamana), to control, or if we use the "ash" dhaatu it

suggests encompass. Therefore the overall meaning becomes as one

who governs, controls, regulates … etc. as sattaadhiisha, svaami …

etc.

Some examples are:

maa no duHsha.nsa iishata (R^igveda 1.239); iishe hyagniramR^itasya

(R^igveda 7.4.6), iishe yo vishvasyaadevaviiteH (R^igveda 10.6.3).

This suggests that the use of the word "iishvara" as being

equivalent to "paramaatma" has developed later on.

Another word that uses this iisha dhaatu is "iishaana", which is

used with the meaning of "svaamitva" while addressing

indra. "iishano yavyaa vadham (R^igveda 1.5.10)", "iishaanaaso ye

dadhate svarNaH (R^igveda 7.90.6).

The word "iishaana" as it appears in yajurveda and atharvaveda

addresses the ruudra or shiva. This adjective "iishaana" then

became the name of "shivaa" and is referenced in the amarakosha

as "iishvaraH sharva iishaanaH".

Another interesting tid-bit abut this word "iishvara" does not

appear in the shukla yajurveda or saama veda either.

Bhagvata giitaa, manusmR^ition use the word "iishvara" as being the

praramaatmaa.

Automatically we ask the question why this may be so? The clue comes

from the phrase "niyatakarmaNaH" (Meaning – Performing their limited

and /or specific function), which is use in association with agni,

indra, maatarishvaa, mitra, varuNa … etc. as these deities do not

seem to have reached or achieved the complete over-all ruler status

(svaamitva) and therefore none of them could be classified as the

iishvara, per say.

Another observation comes from the word "shiva". What if we take

out the vowel "i" from this word "shiva", what remains is "shava"

(meaning – a dead body).

Just some thoughts on iishvara.

brahmaarpaNaM brahma havirbrahmaagnau brahmaNaa hutam.h .

brahmaiva tena gantavyaM brahmakarmasamaadhinaa ..giitaa 4-24..

Regards,

Dr. Yadu

advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

>

> OM TAT SAT

> Namaskar, I did not read every email on this thread but looks like

nobody

> really talked about Ishwar in this email thread.

December 14, 2005

Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih <mahadevadvaita wrote: OM TAT SAT

Namaskar, I did not read every email on this thread but looks like nobody

really talked about Ishwar in this email thread. Before I say anything, let me

clarify that I am not an Advaitin or Dvaitin or Vishistadvaitin. I am just a

believer in Ishwar. The question of Bhakti only comes if you believe in a

supreme Lord or Ishwar. From

Sankarraman

According to the transcendental position

of Advaitha, the triplet of jiva-iswara-jagat is only an unreal appearance of

the Self. This is logically supportable by the every day evidence that one gets

through deep-sleep, the deep sleep swallowing up all existence, that of the

individual as well as anything outside the indivdual, the Witness alone being

there, this being vouchsafed by the fact of one being able to attest to the

Self-supporting Consciousness, which has no rise or fall, in spite of the lapse

of memory, such a Consciousness persisting void of phenomena. Of course, the

empirical philosophers would say that the world exists in the vision of the

others; but Vedanta buts in to point out that the so-called others and objects

could exist only in one's Being. The mistake we commit is to confound the

individual jiva with the Witness, making us beileve in the existence of

objectivity. Sankara's arguing for the existence of Iswara

is only for the medicore people like us who are very much used to objectivity.

To satisfy their needs, the creation by Iswara is extensively talked about. Let

us not confuse the transcendental philosophy with the Vyavaharic, but attempt

to be subjectice in our quest, not being bothered about the existence or

non-existence of Iswara, which questions would surely persist till the domain

of avidya is transcended by the direct experience of the Sphurana.

Sankarraman

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

December 14, 2005

OM TAT SAT

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Kindly allow me to bluntly answer your some of the questions.

BB prabhuji:

Namaskar, I did not read every email on this thread but looks like nobody

really talked about Ishwar in this email thread.

bhaskar :

When we are talking about bhakti it implicitly meant our bhakti towards

Ishwara/ishtadEvata..

BB prabhuji"

Before I say anything, let me clarify that I am not an Advaitin or Dvaitin

or Vishistadvaitin. I am just a believer in Ishwar.

bhaskar :

That is more than enough prabhuji in the path of spiritual self

aggrandizement...when you are neutral ...no need to label yourself as

dvaitin or v.advaitins or somethingelse.

BB prabhuji:

The question of Bhakti only comes if you believe in a

supreme Lord or Ishwar.

bhaskar :

Advaita (my school) does asks us to believe in Ishwara when you are

thinking & identifying yourself with BMI!!

BB prabhuji :

According to my understanding of Advaita, it says that even Ishwar has

reality only in the relative plane of existence.

bhaskar :

Yes, but when we are entangled in saMsAra, when we are passionately

identifying ourselves with upAdhi-s we cannot say ONLY ishwara is

relatively real!!

BB prabhuji:

Advaita says that on realization or atmabodha, all things are in me or I am

in all things.

In other words, there is no Ishwar as such because Brahman neither creates

nor

destroys nor is he aware of any object.

bhaskar :

Yes, this is siddhAnta drushty keeping shruti ultimatum in mind that

parabrahman is ultimately nirguNa, nirvishEsha, nirvikAra & niravayava...

BB prabhuji:

Even before you start praying, Advaita creates a doubt in your mind - that

the Lord you are praying to has only relative reality.

bhaskar :

thinking that we are real in this body & god/ishwara is only relative

reality is nothing better than blasphemy. I think you are getting confused

with siddhAnta & AcharaNa...AcharaNa involves duality...where Ishwara &

jIva bhEdha is real!!!

BB prabhuji:

The supreme Brahman neither created anything nor is he aware

of anything for it is the universal subject.

bhaskar :

saguNa brahman has the qualities of sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc..

BB prabhuji:

Whence then came Vedas ? Why treat Shruti with reverence and respect ?

bhaskar :

pls. study shankara bhAshya on shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa / sUtra -

shAstrayOnitvAt (3rd sUtra)...you will come to know shAstra's role in

advaita vEdAnta.

BB prabhuji:

Brahman is not aware of any Shruti, is he ?

bhaskar :

shruti & anubhava are the antya pramANa to realize svarUpa/brahman.

BB prabhuji:

This is a fundamental problem that Advaita presents to my dull

understanding. This paramarthik position of Advaita is also in conflict

with

Brahmsutra which says that Brahman is the cause of creation, dissolution

etc of

the universe. What creation and what object says Advaita ?

bhaskar :

when to the wise one, All has become the Self ALONE, then

what will He see and with what, what will He hear and with

what.....what will he know and with what?"

This is not advaita's assertion...this is shruti which is saying

it...advaita simply echoing shruti siddhAnta.

BB prabhuji:

OM TAT SAT

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 14, 2005

Shri Mahadevadvaitaji !

if you will notice at the very outset of this thread , we did invoke

the blessings of Govinda (one of the names of ISHWARA) by quoting the

very first verse of Viveka chudamani. (post 29136)

sarva-ved'aanta-siddh'aanta-gocharaM tam agocharam

gov'indaM param'aanandaM sad-guruM praNato'smy aham ..(Viveka

Chudamani Verse1)

I prostrate myself before Govinda, the true Guru and ultimate Bliss,

who is the unattainable resort of all scriptures and Vedanta.

Withour Bhagwat Kripa or grace of ishwara, it is not possible to

undertake anything even the so called quest for knowing the Ultimate

Truth called 'Brahman' ... Is it posiible to know the absolute

reality without knowing the 'relative' reality ? It is for this

reason before beginning any spiritual undertaking, it is always

customary to invoke the blessings of Achuta, Govinda and Narayana !

in my posts on this thread, at various times i havetried to emphasize

the importance of surrendering to 'ishwara' by taking many of the

various names of god/esses! In fact, Subbuji also mentioned something

about the importance of Bhagwat kripa and Guru Kripa.

i am sure you are all aware that india's star batsman has hit the

headlines in the last few days because he has topped the world record

by hitting 35 centuries in his lifetima as a batsman! When one of the

tv reporters asked Sachin Tendulkar the reason behind his

phenomenal success , he said only one word' Ishwara kripa' !

and this is even more so in the field of spirituality ! In Sri Vishnu

Sahasaraama, Sri Vishu is referred to as

agraNIh

One who leads forward.

Om agraNye namah.

agre nayati iti agraNIh - One who leads forward is agraNIh. SrI

Sankara and SrI Bhattar interpret the 'leading forward' as referring

to bhagavAn's guNa of leading His devotees to moksha.

As yaduji has beautifully poited out 'Ishwara' is the controller; we

jivas are all mere instruments . He is the operator ... it is by his

will , we can move firward . His 'svecchha ' or free will ! In order

to move forward in spirituality we have to have the intensity,

passion and the yearning and longing to know the Ultimate truth! How

are we going to know the 'nrguna;' ( not brahman without attributes -

but Sarvaguna brahman - brahman with all the attributes) without

worshipping the 'saguna' brahman or ishwara?

As long as we have the 'deha' , 'buddhi (mind) and 'chit (intellect)

and we are still in a state of 'avidya' , for the sake of 'upasana' ,

we do need a Saguna brahman ( call it shiva, vishnu, shakti or

whatever) for the sake of upasana and as our beloved chiitaa would

often say for 'chitta shuddhi' ... i would ecourage you to read

chitta's excellent post on the 'real and unreal' with reference to

Ishwara and Maya . Also, professor VKji's web site on BMI and

Advaita etc ?

If we recognize there is a creation then we have a creator and we are

all the created . i am not going to talk about the reflection theory

and about waking , sleep , deep sleep states etc - i will leave ito

to the experts here ... we have to invoke ishwara or any of his forms

in the path of sadhana. He is the one who will help us to conquer

our 'ego' and also help us to use our discriminating intellect. We

are empowered by his grace! How can we have 'nishkamya' bhakti

without the grace of god or god in the form of guru.

First there is the jeevatma and then there is the paramtma but by

ishwara kripa , through upasana ad sadhana , the jeeva gets rid of

avidya maya and his/her ego and a stage comes when he/she totally

identifies with the paramatma !Once the bhakta attains jnana ( all

these vanish- jeeva, ishwara , ego etc! If i recall correctly, Sri

Ramaa maharishi said 'In a state of jnana there is no god and no

guru ; all is self '

A FEW QUOTES FROM vIVEKA CHUDAMANI

viveka-vij¤aana-vato mah'aatmano

brahm'aaham ity eva matiH sad'aatmani .. 160

I am the body is the opinion of the fool. I am body and soul is the

view of the scholar, while for the greatsouled, discriminating man,

his inner knowledge is I am God.

brahm'aananda-nidhir mahaa-balavataa'haMkaara-ghor'aahinaa

saMveshhTy aatmani rakshhyate guNa-mayaish chaNDes tribhir mastakaiH

vij¤aan'aakhya-mahaasinaa shrutimataa vichchhidya shiirshha-trayaM

nir-muuly-aahim imaM nidhiM sukha-karaM dhiiro'nubhoktuM kshhamaH ..

302

The hidden treasure of supreme bliss is guarded by the very powerful

and terrible snake \aham.kaara, which envelopes the self with itd

three heads, the \gunas. The wise man is able to enjoy this hidden

treasure of bliss after cutting off these three heads and destroying

this serpent with the great sword of spiritual knowledge. (303)

svayaM brahmaa svayaM vishhNuH svayam indraH svayaM shivaH

svayaM vishvam idaM sarvaM sva-smaad anyan na ki¤chana .. 388

The \Atman is \Brahmaa, the \Atman is \Vishhnu, the \Atman is Indra,

the \Atman is \Shiva, the \Atman is the whole of this universe;

besides \Atman there is nothing. (389)

vedaanta-siddhaanta-niruktir eshhaa

brahm'aiva jiivaH sakalaM jagach cha

akhaNDa-ruupa-sthitir eva mokshho

brahm'aadvitiiye shrutayaH pramaaNam ..

478

The \Vedaanta doctrine sets forth that the whole universe and \jiivas

are but Brahman, that \mokshha is abiding in the indestructible

essence and the shrutis are the authority for the non-duality of

Brahman

Sage Suka, a brahmajnani, took immense pleasure in narrating the

Srimad Bhagvatam to Parikshit Maharaj and what is srimad Bhagvatam

except a text which describes the glories of Vasudeva ?

in closing

sa paryagach chukram akayam avranam

ashnaviram shuddham apapa viddham

kavir manishi paribhuh svayambhur

yathatathyato 'rthan vyadadhach chashvatibhyah samabhyah.

When an exalted soul realizes that all sentient beings are one in

relation to the Supreme -i.e. that all beings are the infinitesimal

parts of the One-how shall he have any more delusion and what grief

will come to him?

Ishopanishad 8

Sri Gurave namaha!

- In advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

>

> OM TAT SAT

> Namaskar, I did not read every email on this thread but looks like

nobody

> really talked about Ishwar in this email thread.

December 14, 2005

Respected Shri Mahadevji

Hari Om. Namaskaram.

Giving here my understanding with a hope that it helps you. I don't

know much so suggestions, corrections from learned ones are welcome

and appreciated.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Brahman and Ishwara are one and the same.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

THEORY:

We experience world so there must be a creator for this world. As we

know Brahman is the only Truth so Brahman must be the cause of

creation and everything must have come from Brahman only. However

Brahman is changelss so it cannot become anything else. Brahman is

sat-chit-anand and we see misery everywhere. How can then this World

of constant changes come about from changeless Brahman? Just like in

Algebra when we don't know something we assume X like that to

explain creation Vedanta Postulated Maya. So, now we can say World

appears due to Maya.

Now let's take snake-rope example. Rope cannot create the snake yet

we see it. From standpoint of rope there is no snake, there never

was a snake and there never will be a snake. However, from stanpoint

of snake, rope is its creator. Similarly, from standpoint of Brahman

there is no creation but from standpoint of World, Brahman is its

cause. This is due to Maya. So, Brahman when endowed with Maya is

called Ishwara, the creator.

PRACTICAL:

This is all theory from Tattwabodha. How can we apply this? How can

we understand Maya? What is it in us that makes us see things where

there are not? It is our mind. We see dreams at night. Even during

the day we keep seeing things e.g. Say we lose our wallet. We look

around and see a strange looking man standing there. Immediately we

take him to be a theif. However, when we find our wallet we realise

that that man was never a thief. So, mind is Maya. When we look at

Brahman through our mind it is Ishwara. In meditation when mind gets

transcended Only Brahman is. We may be singing bhajans, we may be

serving others with worshipful attitude, we may be doing Japa, we

may be studying Advait Vedanta or we may be doing Meditation, aren't

we setting our mind in Him? aren't we serving Him? aren't we trying

to know Him? and when the mind melts wouldn't it be just Him? Then

it is all His Bhakti only. How can it be anything else?

My dear brother, you please don't let anything create doubt in your

mind about Bhakti. Please inscribe this statment in your heart with

permanent ink that "Brahman and Ishwara are one and the same." May

Bhagwan protect you always. My love to you.

Love and Respect

Padma

advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

it says that

> even Ishwar has reality only in the relative plane of existence.

Advaita says

> that on realization or atmabodha, all things are in me or I am in

all things.

> In other words, there is no Ishwar as such because Brahman neither

creates nor

> destroys nor is he aware of any object. Even before you start

praying, Advaita

> creates a doubt in your mind - that the Lord you are praying to

has only

> relative reality. The supreme Brahman neither created anything nor

is he aware

> of anything for it is the universal subject. Whence then came

Vedas ? Why

> treat Shruti with reverence and respect ? Brahman is not aware of

any Shruti,

> is he ? This is a fundamental problem that Advaita presents to my

dull

> understanding.

December 14, 2005

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

> BB prabhuji:

>

> Even before you start praying, Advaita creates a

> doubt in your mind - that

> the Lord you are praying to has only relative

> reality.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> thinking that we are real in this body & god/ishwara

> is only relative

> reality is nothing better than blasphemy. I think

> you are getting confused

> with siddhAnta & AcharaNa...AcharaNa involves

> duality...where Ishwara &

> jIva bhEdha is real!!!

Dear Bhaskar Ji,

Well said. It is a blasphemy and sacriligious to say

that eshwara has got only a relative existence as long

as we feel and identify with the bm complex. Infact

the greatest jnani like ramanamaharshi when somebody

asked him about the same topic telling that is the

eshwara and the different lokas or planes of existence

are real or not maharshi told them that they are as

real as your body and the lord and the different

planes do exist.

Swami Vivekananda once rebuked a disciple who told him

the same view telling that the divine mother exist and

she is guiding this whole universe. Once he heard the

divine mother's voice in Kshir Bhavani temple and when

he was telling this experience to his disciple the

latter objected by telling that it may be his

hallucination of mind. But swamiji rebuked him and

said that one can see and hear voice of the mother and

it is not hallucination or imagination.

Ofcourse he also said that one can transcend that

state where one can have knowledge ultimate reality

where all dualities are lost. He told in one of his

lecture that two class of people do not worship god.

One is human brute and another is paramahamsa. He

asked his audience if anybody in the middle of these

two states rebuked image worship to ask the definition

of god not the simple utterence of omnipotence..

omnicience etc but beyond the meaning of these words.

Jokingly he told that that man may say that he is vast

like sea or sky. But what he does is instead of

thinking of god he will be thinking about the sea or

sky!!

HARI OM TAT SAT

Yours in the Lord,

Br. Vinayaka.

December 16, 2005

Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

Please note that Advaita philosophy also doesn'exist at the

transcendental position! In your earlier postings you have indicated

that you are not familiar with 'traditional advaita philosophy' and

now suddenly you appear to indicate that you 'fully understood the

position of advaita philosophy with respect to 'Isvara.' As Sri

Michael rightly points out that you should state all the necessary

qualifications for your observations. Ideally, you could at least

state that your observations are only "your own opinion," not

necessarily should be interpreted to the intended position of

Sankara. Our understanding of the scriptures is always incomplete due

to our own limitations and let us not state our opinion to be the

true statement of the scripture. As a moderator of this list, I do

need to make this clarification to the members of the list, to remove

or reduce the confusion.

Your second statement, "Sankara's arguing for the existence of Iswara

is only for the mediocre people like us who are very much used to

objectivity" is utterly misleading and false. Your statement actually

ridicules Sankara's implied presence and existence of Isvara in the

core of advaita philosophy. The core of Sankara's advaita philosophy

is to recognize the importance of the existence of Isvara in our

heart (inner core of our personality) even to those who operate with

the mode of avidya (vyavaharic level). No philosophy can explain the

transcendental reality not any philosophy is needed at the

transcendental position!

I hope this clarification helps you and also the list members. What

I have stated is my understanding of Sankara's advaita philosophy and

I look forward to hear from other learned members about their

observations.

Warmest regards,

Harih Om!

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

> According to the transcendental position of Advaitha, the triplet

of jiva-iswara-jagat is only an unreal appearance of the Self. This

is logically supportable by the every day evidence that one gets

through deep-sleep, the deep sleep swallowing up all existence, that

of the individual as well as anything outside the indivdual, the

Witness alone being there, this being vouchsafed by the fact

>......

> Sankara's arguing for the existence of Iswara is only for the

medicore people like us who are very much used to objectivity. To

satisfy their needs, the creation by Iswara is extensively talked

about. Let us not confuse the transcendental philosophy with the

Vyavaharic, but attempt to be subjectice in our quest, not being

bothered about the existence or non-existence of Iswara, which

questions would surely persist till the domain of avidya is

transcended by the direct experience of the Sphurana.

>

December 16, 2005

Namaste Adima-ji and Sankarraman-ji...

First of all, Adima, i took this long to reply to your last post because

i was letting your words sink in, and until i was sure of my take on the

issue i wouldn't waste words that would only dilute my impressions. At this

point, after a long resonation in my mind of the month's topic and your

words to me, my vision is clear.

I am inclined towards bhakti, yes, i have come to realise, but in the

sense that for some time now (about 4 months, 2 of which in this satsangha)

Advaita occupies my mind in all my waking hours (and even some sleeping

hours too - i often meditate in dreams), and every other thought i have, is

followed by another, "one truth". On the light of everything that is being

discussed here, i take this to be bhakti. The more traditionalist forms of

devotion, to representations of the divine absolute, are perhaps not to

suitable for me, as i have said in my introdutory post, after leaving behind

my western catholic formation, i also felt rightful to simultaneously leave

behind the costume of asking divinity for samsaric realisations (even that

of the absolute). I cannot anymore ask for anything to my "own" (i have

replaced the word self here, i don't think it would be applied in a non

distortive manner).

The stories of Hanuman appeal to me, for his rightful conduct,

incredible one-pointedness of mind, and for all the other lesser, but

beautiful attributes, being a musician etc. Also, the notion that he is half

monkey, half god is very useful in cutting the root of our human arrogance

towards our intelectualization capacity and the supposed "powers" that come

with it, and this very much appealed to me. As regards the other senses of

the word bhakti, i very much need and enjoy mantras, to help achieve

one-pointedness of mind, and every time i feel the urge to meditate i begin

by chanting for quite some time. I would like to ask, if possible, for you

and other knowledgeable members, to post good mantras that would aid in this

manner.

All in all, Ram-ji's post pretty much covered my view on studying and

contemplating several individual aspects of the underlying divinity, as

codes of conduct and lessons to perfect our way of being that would bring us

closer to truth.

At this point, i merge my words with those of Sankarraman-ji, though i'd

like to add a bit to clarify my take on this (and i believe this might also

be what he tried to convey). When he says "(...)not being bothered about the

existence or non-existence of Iswara, which questions would surely persist

till the domain of avidya is transcended by the direct experience of the

Sphurana(...)", i interpret this on the following manner: given that Iswara

dictates our lives, and moves it towards whatever it desires in prakriti,

all aspects of our being (obviously including intellect and mind) are taken

and directed towards whichever direction it desires, may this be the

righteous path for self-realisation or otherwise. How is it possible to

question, or doubt, the will of the Lord towards us? Therefore, i rejoice in

the fact that it has taken me this far (for instance, opening the ways for

me to join this wonderful satsangha) and let my mind reach out for the

absolute truth. The other aspects of mind are in very good hands, it seems,

no need to worry. So i am not discarding or disregarding Iswara's will, i

am just accepting it in the guidance of my BMI, and as this is taken care of

(not by me), i have enough room in my mind to devote to advaita and the

pursuit of true-self.

Finally, i believe once more that several discussions have merged, and

it is an appropriate time to sum it all up in the discussion about wether

advaita is only fit for sanyasis or not. As another paradox (to add to the

countless ones that are presented, and helps us inch further in the pursuit

of truth), dwelling on the shloka that states advaita not being fit for

householders etc, leads to objectivation. So, upon stumbling across what

would seem to be an adversity, should we let this shake our faith in the

pursuit of the underlying truth, to the obvious conclusion that "if it's

stated that i will not receive the fruits, i shall not persist"? Causality

is settled, and now it's obvious that mind has drifted radically off of the

scope of advaita. Time and time again, it has been said that the first place

to try and settle our minds, in the pursuit of truth, should be the bypassing of

time. And for this what could be more fitting than to let go of a goal

oriented personality? That is the paradox, it has become quite clear that in

order for the goal to be reached, it needs not to be a goal. And even not

having goals is a goal...

My warmest regards, Namaste to all...

December 16, 2005

Namaste:

First, I strongly recommend you to go over the list archieve and get

some understanding of 'Isvara' within Advaita. Then you will be able

to appreciate that Advaita recognizes "Isvara" within the central

core of advaita. When you touch with your hand on the left side of

your chest, you should be able the feel the 'hear beatings,' and my

friend, that signals the presence of 'Isvara' within you. Isvara

occupies within everyone's heart (the right place for His presence)

and most of the time, instead of looking within our heart, we seek

the mind to search for the Lord! I am of the opinion that

Visitadvaitins and dwaitins seek the Lord outside where as the

Advaitin look for Him inside!

I don't believe that I can explain to you the core presence

of "Isvara" to your satisfaction because you are neither an advaitin,

visistadvaitin or a dwaitin. Please move away from your 'blind faith

on Isvara' and try to educate yourself so that you can see His light!

Fortunately, you are at the right place, hopefully, if you take some

more time to read Sankara's advaita philosophy with 'shraddha - faith

with conviction.' If you do that you may be able to see the existence

of Isvara within the core of Advaita philosophy. Faith is to believe

what we don't see, and its reward to see what we believe!!

Warmest regards,

Harih Om!

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavih

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

>

> OM TAT SAT

> Namaskar, I did not read every email on this thread but looks like

nobody

> really talked about Ishwar in this email thread. Before I say

anything, let me

> clarify that I am not an Advaitin or Dvaitin or Vishistadvaitin. I

am just a

> believer in Ishwar. The question of Bhakti only comes if you

believe in a

> supreme Lord or Ishwar. According to my understanding of Advaita,

it says that

> even Ishwar has reality only in the relative plane of existence.

Advaita says

> that on realization or atmabodha, all things are in me or I am in

all things.

December 16, 2005

OM TAT SAT

Respected Ram Chandran-ji, Thanks for responding. Bhaskar-ji has ably clarified

the Advaita position on Ishvara. You have referred to blind faith on Ishvara.

My faith on Ishvara is based on what has happened to me in my life (which is a

subjective experience and cannot be talked about) and Bhagavad Gita. I don't

think any school thought of disputes the simple but grand fact that the 5

material senses and mind operate due to the presence of infinite

consciousness.About the absolute or paramarthik plane, nobody can talk anyway

so personally I don't see much differences in the 3 schools of Vedantic

thought.

With best regards,

OM TAT SAT

December 16, 2005

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote: Namaste Sri Sankarraman: